Whether the freedom of contract is implemented concluding the contract with standard conditions?

Standartinė sutartis, kuri šiuo metu yra pagrindinis komercinių santykių bruožas, tapusi vienu dokumentu, siūlomu visiems tos verslo rūšies dalyviams, neretai apriboja šalių pasirinkimo ir derybų galimybę. Dažnai problemų kylą dėl to, kad siekiant aptarti kiek įmanoma daugiau sutarties sąlygų, padidėja sutarties teksto apimtis. Šiandieniniame globaliame pasaulyje šalys sudarydamos sutartis dažnai net neturi laiko įsigilinti į sutarties nuostatas. Dėl šios priežasties sutarties šalys nežino savo prisiimtų įsipareigojimų ir teisių apimties, nesusitvarko su užgriuvusiomis pasekmėmis sutarties pažeidimo atveju. Pasirašant standartinės formos sutartis kyla sutarties laisvės principo įgyvendinimo problema. Iš pirmo žvilgsnio atrodo, kad standartinę sutarties formą pateikianti šalis atima iš kitos sutarties šalies galimybę nustatyti tokio turinio sutartį, kokios ji pageidauja, ir įgyvendinti vieną iš 4 sutarties laisvės principo aspektų – galimybę laisvai nustatyti sutarties sąlygas. Tačiau teisinėje literatūroje gausu teiginių, kad šalys turi derėtis dėl sutarties sąlygų net ir sudarant standartines sutartis. Nes sutartis tai dviejų šalių valios išraiška, o ne vienos šalies valia primesta kitai. Tai ir pabrėžia nagrinėjamo klausimo problematiką. Tema yra aktuali ir tuo, kad nėra visiškai aišku, ar tokiomis sutartimis neužkertamas kelias šalims turėti abiejų šalių valią atitinkančią sutartį. Remiantis teisine literatūra, Lietuvos bei užsienio šalių praktika, šiame darbe buvo siekiama atskleisti sutarties laisvės principo įgyvendinimo prielaidas, šalims pasirašant standartinės formos sutartis. Tam buvo naudojami deskriptyvinis, analizės, lyginamasis, apibendrinimo tyrimo metodai. Atlikus teisinės literatūros ir teismų praktikos analizę, buvo gauti rezultatai, kurie pagrindė darbe ginamą teiginį, kad tinkamai informavus apie standartinės formos sutarties turinį, ją pasirašant užtikrinamas sutarties laisvės įgyvendinimas. Buvo padaryta išvada, kad norint, jog sutarties laisvės principas būtų tinkamai įgyvendinamas, prisijungianti prie sutarties šalis turi būti pakankamai informuota apie sutarties turinį, nors ji ir neturi galimybės laisvai nustatyti sutarties sąlygas. Galima teigti, kad šalis sutinkanti prisijungti prie standartinės sutarties, po to, kai tinkamai ir pilna apimtimi susipažino su sutarties sąlygomis, tokiais veiksmais išreiškia savo sutikimą dėl sutarties nuostatų. Tokiu atveju taip pat svarbu atsižvelgti ir į tai, ar sutarties šalis turėjo galimybę atsisakyti sudaryti sutartį, jei tam tikros sutarties sąlygos šaliai buvo netinkamos ir nepriimtinos. Taigi, pareiga informuoti apie bei galimybė susipažinti su sutarties sąlygomis bei pasirinkimo laisvė sudaryti sutartį ar ne, šiuo atveju yra esminės kalbant apie sutarties laisvės įgyvendinimą standartinėse sutartyse.The standard contract is presently the main element in commercial relationships. It has now become a single document offered to all the representatives of the same field of business, often limiting an entity's possibilities. Many problems arise because of the inclination to cover as many contractual terms as possible, making the text of the contract too long, and making it difficult for people in today's global world, in which nobody has any time to spare, to read the contract at all. This means that individuals are not familiar with the extent of their own obligations and rights, do not know how to defend themselves against claims of contract violation, and cannot deal with the consequences of contract violation. The problem of ensuring the principle of contractual freedom becomes a pertinent issue when signing standard contracts. At first glance, it seems that a standard contract form prevents the other party from drafting the content of the contract as desired and applying the fourth aspect of the principle of contractual freedom, i.e., the possibility to freely determine the terms and provisions of a contractual agreement. However, legal literature abounds with statements that parties should negotiate over contractual terms even when signing a standard contract, because a contract is the expression of the will of two parties, and not the will of one party imposed upon another. The subject is also relevant because there is no absolute clarity about whether such contracts do not take away from the possibility for both parties to enter into a contract that expresses both of their desires. Based on legal literature and the practices in Lithuania and abroad, this paper seeks to reveal the preconditions necessary for implementing the principle of contractual freedom when signing standard contracts. Descriptive, analytical, comparative and overview methods of research were used. The paper discusses the peculiarities of drafting various standard contracts (consumer-to-business, business-to-business and consumer-to-public entities) and analyses how the principle of contractual freedom is implemented in each case. The analysis of legal literature and case law produced results that justified the main hypothesis proposed in this paper: that the implementation of the principle of contractual freedom is secured by informing parties about the content of a standard contract form and by informing that party have a right to not enter into a contract. The following conclusions were made. The principle of contractual freedom is appropriately implemented if the parties entering a civil legal relationship are of equal standing. When a contract is drawn up between parties that do not have equal standing, state regulation or courts of law must step in. Thus, according to scholars of the law, the supervision of the state in ensuring the principle of contractual freedom is paramount because unfair contractual terms violate the fundamental rights of the weaker party. Thus standard consumer contracts are most analysed by courts of law, with a focus on whether the user was appropriately informed about the content of the contract when entering it. If the party was not suitably informed about the content of the contract, a court of law might revise the contract to the advantage of the consumer or even invalidate it. Nonetheless, speaking about the business-to-business contracts, there is no requirement that states that a joining party should be suitably informed about the content of a contract. The availability of such a possibility is, apparently, enough because it is presumed that businessmen are attentive, circumspect and cautious parties in civil relations, they know that they will have to fulfil the terms of the contract they have signed, and they understand the risk they are taking on. The principle of contractual freedom is most regulated in public contracts because it is necessary to ensure the accessibility of electricity, heating, water, gas or other goods strategically important for the livelihood of the state economy or for the personal and everyday needs of the public, as well as to protect the interests of the weaker party entering a contractual agreement, i.e., the consumer of public services such as transportation, communications, electricity, heating, gas, water utilities or other services. Many of these contracts are drafted under the Estoppel rule, however, the other party is not informed about the terms set within them. The provider of services does not have the possibility to refuse entering into a contract with a person that has contacted them for this express purpose. A party providing public services is obliged to enter into contract with anyone who addresses them for this reason, and this means that business subjects have limited possibilities to terminate their contract. Following the analysis of court law and literature, a test was devised to help assess whether the principle of contractual freedom is appropriately implemented: the joining party is given a chance to familiarize themselves with the terms of the contract —> the joining party is informed and understands the terms of the contract —> the joining party agrees with the terms of the contract —> the principle of contractual freedom is implemented. The test was altered in consideration of various types of standard contracts. However, in order to suitably implement the principle of contractual freedom, the joining party has to be sufficiently informed about the content of the contract and about the right not to enter in it, even though it does not have the possibility to freely determine its terms. The duty to inform is crucial in the implementation of the principle of contractual freedom in standard contracts.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta